You did not go too far on the cite huh?
Well, I guess it is true that many Tea Partiers consider the moderate Republicans of today to be socialists.
That is an absolutely fantastic line. Bravo.
This seems unlikely. Einstein died in 1955 and Javits didn’t become a senator until 1957. He was a Congressman earlier, but from New York while Einstein lived in New Jersey. I’m not finding any connection between them in a quick search. Of course, trying to make a conservative point off of Einstein’s relationship with a New York Jewish liberal in the 1950s is as sensible as, well, as any other conservative point.
This is true, but potentially misleading. While Catholic schools were once mostly urban, today probably 90% are sited outside of inner cities. Those inner city schools are predominantly majority, but they hardly make a dent in either the total public school or total Catholic school population.
It’s irrelevant, in any case. No governmental money should ever be used to fund religious schooling. Everybody understood this in the heyday of Catholic schooling. That’s a separate issue from whether vouchers are a good idea or not, but always deliberately ignored by voucher supporters. You might think that following the traditional understanding of the Constitution would be a fundamental conservative tenet, but that would require consistency of thought and logic.
I could very well be wrong. I vaguely remember hearing somewhere Einstein had attended a fundraiser but if Javits didn’t become a Senator until after he died that’s unlikely.
And yes, I noted that Javits was most certainly a liberal and at that time, liberals were by no means anathema to the Republican party. In fact the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party was extremely powerful.
I said that in response to Conservian. I didn’t mean to imply that you were wrong in that way. Noting the difference in the party’s worldview over the past half century is indeed critical and totally counter to the implications about the past we’ve been hearing in this thread. A party that has abandoned and anathematized liberalism can hardly hope to draw new members on the strength of that vanquished history.
This is highly different than the history in my universe.
It’s not hard- there were lots (millions) of southern white racists that, before Civil Rights, were staunch Democratic voters. After Civil Rights they were not so staunch in their support of the Democratic party. The Republicans saw an opening, and went for it- using coded (and uncoded) language, hinting that black people were getting their jobs, that “welfare queens” were living high on the government hog, and other crap meant to appeal to white racists.
This is not even controversial. When the Democratic party ceased being a racist party, there was a vacuum- of course the Republicans would try to get the racists’ votes- they started to be the “states rights” party, and the party against federal government intervention (e.g. integration, affirmative action, voting rights act, MLK Day, etc). So the Republicans made efforts to get racists’ votes. And now there are few enough racists that they lose more non-racist votes then they gain with the same strategy.
Einstein believed in science- things like evolution, natural explanations for various phenomena, that the Bible is not an accurate explanation of how the world works, etc. I don’t think he’d fit in too well with the Steve Kings of our day.
Actually, this is fairly insightful. However, it’s beginning to be attenuated by the new southbound diaspora. More centrist/liberal people from the north - Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan and so forth - moving down here. I live in South Carolina now, having moved down here from Ohio, and the number of damnyankees here in the greater Charleston area is beginning to change the electoral calculus for local elections. If this migration continues it’s very possible that several of the staunchly conservative states will start going purple.
I remember our family watching the 1960 Conventions: lots of fun with Huntley & Brinkley. JFK was a hopeful choice for President, but Old Texan LBJ finally pushed through Civil Rights legislation. Even though he knew the Democrats would lose the South. The Republican Party seized the opportunity with its Southern Strategy, racist Democrats turned their coats & Liberal Republicans became an endangered species. I saw this happen, watched the news & have paid attention through the years.
My favorite map of the 2012 Presidential election shows blue cities in the South, surrounded by inflamed looking red suburbs. And sparsely populated areas in interesting pastels: light blue down along the Border and the (darker blue) Black Belt winding through the heart of Dixie.
The future looks interesting. What do the Republicans have to offer anybody but white racist males? (Our Governor & many legislators have been giving Texas women of all colors a big fuck you lately–and have inspired some resistance.) And not all white males are racist–even in the South. The Tea Partiers, especially, are racists or those eager to pander to racism. They can gerrymander & demand Voter ID and keep trying to try to stop the future, but they have nothing positive to offer anybody…
FYI: Intelligent Design is science.
Excerpt from “The Religiousness of Science,” which appeared in a collection of Einstein’s essays published in English under the title “The World As I See It”:
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation…His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added]).
No doubt that, Einstein, while not a bible-thumper, was definitely no atheist.
No, it isn’t and nothing in the quote you offered supports your assertion.
I hate to tell you but white women can be just as racist as white men and plenty of white women supported the Tea Party and similar groups.
Sure, but I think her point is that the current Republican party is coupling racism with misogyny, and they’re losing a lot of women voters as well as virtually all African American voters. Even racist white women might think twice about voting for a Republican party that holds them in such contempt.
That soft popping noise you just heard was the last, tattered shreds of your credibility disappearing in a puff of a smoke.
Except a lot of pro-lifers and supporters of the various described policies are women.
Similarly, one of the great ironies is that most of the people who feel strongly about preserving things like female genital mutilation in parts of the world where it’s practiced tend to be women.
Generally speaking, the voting difference between white women and white men is only about 4 percent.
Yes, the “gender gap” regarding “men” and “women” is larger when it comes to voting, but the main reason for that is due to very obvious but depressing reasons, African-American and to a lesser extent Latino women vote in much higher numbers than their male counterparts.
I’ll confess to being tempted to making a comment about how it’s as much science as “science fiction” is, but decided that would be insulting to science fiction.
Your’s is better.
That’s what Democrats want to believe. Strange that Democrats considered themselves the virtuous party even when they had the racists locked down through direct appeals to racism, now the REpublicans are evil because they supposedly used “coded” language, even though they used the same rhetoric they always had.
It’s the old Democrats’ Stupid Strategy: anyone the Republicans win is stupid, and Republicans won them by appealing to their stupid, while Democrats took the high ground. It may not help Democrats win, but it does make them feel good about themselves in losing.
Santorum isn’t exactly the brightest bulb himself. The GOP usually wins the college graduate vote, it’s the postgraduate vote they usually lose.
I would like to see a cite on that. If you look on electoral maps, it’s the University cities/county that overwhelmingly vote liberal. Take a look at Washtenaw County (U of M) in Michigan, Erie County (Penn State) in Pennsylvania, Franklin County (Ohio State) in Ohio, or Wake County (Duke University) in North Carolina for starters.
- Honesty
People in college tend to be very liberal. Indoctrination and all that. Once they get jobs though and become taxpayers, their interests, and views, change. Anyway, here’s 2012 exit poll data:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president
Romney narrowly won those who graduated college but didn’t get postgraduate degrees, and lost everyone else.
In 2008… Okay, I’ll have to wait for 2008 to load, CNN’s being bitchy.
In 2004, Bush did best among those with college education, but lost those with postgraduate degrees and narrowly lost those without colllege:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Ah, there’s 2008:
Obama beat McCain in all education demographics, but was weakest from high school graduates to college graduates, winning non-HS graduates and postgraduates by big margins.